RE-VISIONING COMMUNITY POLICING

Ronald T. Stansfield

At first glance it may appear that public police are the only police and that community policing is a
comprehensive set of programs delivered by public police to the communities they serve. Even a cursory
review of the history of policing, however, reveals that policing is a differentiated social structure that has
several forms of which public policing is only one example. This article attempts to reframe community
policing within the developmental logic of the 'Spectrum of Policing'.

An analysis of the history of policing reveals that there have been at least three major forms of
policing in the modern era. Beginning with vigilantes in the Agricultural Era, there followed public police in
the Industrial Era and private police in the Information Era. While all of these police forms were in use
during each of these eras, only one police form dominated and became the 'average mode' of policing during
any single era.

Three factors determine which form of policing will dominate and become the average mode of
policing during a particular era; the size of the economic surplus, the extent of private property and the
complexity of the community structure. So, for example, during the Agricultural Era the economic surplus
was relatively small, private property was relatively scarce and community structure was relatively
uncomplicated, and vigilante or part-time, volunteer police dominated. Very simply, farming communities
literally could not afford and did not need more sophisticated and expensive forms of policing. A full-time,
mercenary or public police did not become the average mode of policing until the Industrial Era when, due
to dramatic increases in the size of the economic surplus, availability of private property, and complexity of
community structure, communities both needed and could afford this relatively sophisticated and expensive
form of policing. Lastly, the Information Revolution has produced additional increases in the economic
surplus, availability of private property and complexity of community structure, with the result that private
police have become the average mode of policing in informational communities.

The ascendancy of private police during the Information Era has not signaled the end of public
police or vigilantes. To the contrary, the stratification of information communities has ensured that while
private police dominate, public police and vigilantes continue to be used to reproduce order. In particular,
vigilante groups are the police of choice among the poor in many communities; public police are the police
of choice among the middle classes; and private police are the police of choice among elites. In effect,
informational communities are policed by several different police forms, only one of which - private police -
dominates.

When viewed from the developmental logic of the Spectrum of Policing it can be seen that
communities improvise the police forms they require to satisfy their security needs. This ensures that in
stratified communities several police forms will co-exist although one will tend to dominate. This view is in
sharp contrast to the conventional stereotype of who the police are and what the police do. Not only are
public police not the dominant police form at present, but the community policing services they provide do
not satisfy the safety needs of large parts of the community. True community policing is the result of the
combined efforts of several different police forms.

INTRODUCTION

At first glance it may appear that public policing is the only form of policing and that
community policing is a set of programs developed by public police for the communities they serve.
However, even a cursory review of the history of policing reveals that policing is a differentiated
social structure, and that public policing is only one form of this structure.

If the usual stereotype of what policing is and who the police are is inaccurate or misleading,
then our understanding of community policing may also be limited or flawed. This paper attempts to
're-vision' community policing within the developmental logic of the 'Spectrum of Policing'.

FUNCTIONS OF POLICING

At one level, the psychological, policing is intended to satisfy a basic human need. Maslow
(1970) notes that human needs are organized in a hierarchy that begins with physiological needs,
develops through safety, belongingness, self-esteem and self-actualization needs, and reaches its
zenith in the need for self-transcendence (Figure 1). One function of policing then is to satisfy the
individual's need to feel safe and secure.

The need for safety is not limited to protecting the physical self. Wilber (1980) notes that at
some levels of development (i.e., 'self-consciousness') the individual ego identifies not only with the
physical self, but also with material objects or property possessed by the self. As a result, a threat to
the individual's property may also be perceived as a threat to the individual. A practical result of this
situation is that individual safety needs vary as a function of personal wealth: an increase in personal
wealth produces an increase in individual safety needs and vice versa (Figure 2). If individual safety
needs increase as a result of the acquisition of new forms of property such as VCR's, computers and
camcorders, or by the acquisition of old forms of property on an unprecedented scale, such as theme
parks, sports complexes and shopping malls, then new forms of policing may be required to satisfy
the increased 'safety' needs.

At another level, the social, policing is intended to reproduce order. Ericson (1982) notes: it is
not the mandate of the police to produce a new order. On the contrary, their everyday actions are
directed at reproducing the existing order (the 'normal and efficient state') and the order (system of
rules) by which this is accomplished ... (t)heir sense of order and the order they seek to reproduce
are that of the status quo. (p. 7)

Another function of policing then is to enforce laws that reproduce social order. It follows that
if social order is transformed by the development of new forms of technology, then new forms of
policing may be required to reproduce the new form of social order.

Lenski, Lenski, and Nolan (1991) among others (Drucker, 1993; Toffler, 1980; Naisbitt,
1984; Laszlo, 1987) have argued that social structure has been transformed by a series of
technological 'waves' throughout the ages.1 Beginning with the Agricultural Revolution, there
followed the Industrial Revolution and, most recently, the Information Revolution - which continues
at present. Not surprisingly, changes in social structure have had important implications for policing.

VIGILANTE POLICING IN THE AGRICULTURAL ERA

Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived in small rural communities and subsisted
by farming (Lenski et al., 1991). The basic unit of social organization at this time was kinship
groups (Toffler, 1980, p. 28) and the basic unit of economic organization was the peasant-
landowner relationship (Marx & Engels, 1947). Farming technology, based initially on the hoe and
later the plough, produced a relatively small economic surplus that was distributed unevenly among
the population producing a stratified social structure (ibid.). Typically, landowner elites, controlled
the economic surplus and used it to satisfy their selfish needs including their safety needs (ibid.).
The remainder of the population lived in poverty and consequently, were forced to improvise ad hoc
arrangements to satisfy their safety needs.2

The poor in farming communities possessed little or no property and, as a result, their safety
needs were limited to protecting themselves and their families. Given their modest safety needs,
large numbers and limited access to material resources, the poor utilized their human resources to
satisfy their safety needs. Critchley (1972) notes that in England this took the form of an informal
and part-time system of volunteer policing that relied upon 'vigilance', 'hue and cry' (i.e., a vocal
alarm), 'posse' (i.e., an assembly of men3) among other strategies to reproduce social order. In a
word, the safety needs of the poor were policed by 'vigilantes' during the Agricultural Era.

In contrast to the poor, elites in farming communities possessed considerable property
including real estate, domesticated animals, slaves and a variety of chattels. As a result, farming
elites needed a form of policing to protect themselves, their families and their property. Lacking the
human resources of the poor, elites used their extraordinary economic resources to hire full-time
mercenaries or, more simply, private police, to satisfy their safety needs. In short, vigilante policing
was the 'average mode'4 of policing during the Agricultural Era and private policing was a
secondary police form.

PUBLIC POLICING IN THE INDUSTRIAL ERA

Vigilante policing remained the 'average mode of policing' until the Industrial Revolution.
Industrialization literally transformed society from a rural farming society regulated by kinship ties,
into an urban industrial society regulated by the State. The introduction of mechanized farming tools
dramatically reduced the number of people needed in the country to work on farms. As a result,
cities swelled as displaced farmers relocated in search of employment. While many farmers
succeeded in securing employment in urban factories, many more did not. As well, the kinship
groups that formed the bases of communities during the Agricultural Era were destroyed as
individuals and nuclear families relocated to cities. Lenski et al. (1991) note that the destruction of
kinship groups had important consequences for the way industrial communities were organized:

... serious problems resulted from the disruption of social relationships. Long
standing ties of kinship and friendship were severed and could not easily be
replaced, while local customs and institutions that had provided rural villagers
with some measure of protection and support were lost for good. Thus, it was
an uprooted, vulnerable mass of people who streamed into towns and cities and
were thrown into situations utterly foreign to them, and into a way of life that
often culminated in injury, illness, or unemployment. A multitude of social ills -
poverty, alcoholism, crime, vice, mental and physical illness, personal
demoralization - were endemic. (pp. 243-244)

Another important effect of industrialization was a dramatic increase in the economic surplus.
One result of this situation was that even the poorest industrialist had a higher standard of living
than the average farmer had during the Agricultural Era (Lenski et al., 1991). In fact, the economic
surplus was large enough to support not only an elite class and a large number of poor, but also, for
the first time in history, a large middle class developed making industrial communities less stratified
than farming communities (ibid.). The extraordinary wealth and proliferation of new forms of
private property in industrial communities exacerbated individual fears about safety and security.
Not surprisingly, these heightened safety needs became a catalyst for a new form of policing - public
policing.

Industrial elites, like farming elites, used their control of the economic surplus to organize
private police to satisfy their considerable safety needs. Similarly, the poor in industrial
communities, like the poor in farming communities, organized themselves into vigilante groups to
satisfy their modest safety needs. The middle class however, was another matter entirely. The
middle class had safety needs similar to the safety needs of farming elites (i.e., considerable private
property), but not the economic resources. As a result, the State authorized the creation of full-time,
formalized, mercenary police with extraordinary powers or, more simply, public police, to satisfy
the safety needs of the middle class. In short, public policing was the average mode of policing
during the Industrial Era and vigilante policing and private policing were secondary police forms.

PRIVATE POLICING IN THE INFORMATIONAL ERA

A consensus (Toffler, 1980; Naisbitt, 1984; Laszlo, 1987; Drucker, 1993) has emerged that a
third 'wave' of technological development began to sweep over the world in the middle decades of
this century. The information society,5 as it has become known is characterized foremost by the
automatic production of data. Whereas agricultural societies were based on the manufacture of food,
and industrial societies were based on the manufacture of goods, informational societies are based
on the manufacture of data. As well, just as agricultural technology transformed hunting and
gathering society, and industrial technology transformed farming society, informational technology
is transforming industrial society. Laszlo (1987) notes:

The technologies of the second industrial revolution (i.e., the information
revolution) are truly revolutionary. Not only are they major advances over
previous technologies, but they also require major transformations in the
societies that make use of them. A post-industrial society based on abundant
and dense energy resources and on information, robotics, and automation
reaches new heights in autonomy: it progressively detaches itself from
geographic constraints. It generates its own energies and produces its own raw
materials with less and less dependence on the endowments of its milieu. This
could lead to a brusque rupture of geocultural ties which evolved over centuries
... (p. 155)

While it is too early to know the precise details of the informational order, a general outline is
beginning to emerge. Preliminary indications are that the Information Revolution, like previous
technological revolutions, will dramatically increase the economic surplus (Naisbitt and Aburdene,
1990). In the past this has produced a large increase in the standard of living (Lenski et al., 1991, p.
271). Industrialists were more affluent than agriculturalists and agriculturalists were more affluent
than hunter-gatherers: if this pattern continues, informational communities will be the most affluent
communities ever (Figure 3).

The continued growth of the economic surplus in informational communities has supported
large increases in both the size and the wealth of the elite classes. Much of this new wealth is being
used to privatize what were formerly public spaces. Condominiums, stadiums, arenas, shopping
malls, and theme parks are private spaces that formerly did not exist or were public. The
privatization of more and more space is having profound implications for individual safety needs
and therefore, policing.

The emergence of a post-modern, informational order has made the development of a new
form of policing inevitable. Many individuals and groups in the new order have realized that public
police cannot satisfy all of their safety needs and, as a result, they are developing alternatives
(Naisbitt, 1984, p. 171; Stenning, 1989, p. 181). The precise form these 'alternatives' have acquired
has depended on, among other things, the resources available to the individuals and groups that
develop them.

Simultaneous increases in the size of the elite class and the intensity of their safety needs has
resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of private police. For example, by 1991 private police
outnumbered public police in Canada by more than 2 to 1 (Figure 4). Similar increases have been
recorded in other countries also (Spitzer & Scull, 1977; Naisbitt, 1984: 171). The safety needs of the
middle class in informational communities continue to be satisfied by public police and, lacking the
material resources to do otherwise, the poor continue to organize themselves into vigilante police.
As a result, private policing is the average mode of policing in informational communities and
public policing and vigilante policing are secondary police forms.

RE-VISIONING COMMUNITY POLICING

The preceding analysis has several important implications for our understanding of policing
generally, and community policing more particularly. Contrary to the usual stereotype of what
policing is, and whom the police are (i.e., public police), clearly policing is a differentiated social
structure that has at least three different forms, which, when combined, constitute a 'spectrum.' The
Spectrum of Policing begins with vigilante policing, continues with public policing and culminates,
at present, with private policing. (Figure 5).

Not only is public policing not the only form of policing, it is not even the dominant form of
policing at present. This suggests that community policing programs delivered by public police
services will not satisfy all the safety needs of informational communities. Indeed, evidence
(Garofalo & McLeod, 1993, p. 72; Rosenbaum, 1993, p. 84; Walker, Walker, & McDavid, 1993;
Hornick, Burrows, Phillips, & Leighton, 1993, p. 330) from North America indicates that
community policing programs there have produced mixed results at best.

If the community policing programs delivered by public police agencies are not the answer to
the safety needs of informational communities, then, what is? The answer appears to be that
communities are 'organic' insofar as they improvise the police services they require to satisfy the
safety needs of their individual members and reproduce social order. Generally, individuals and
groups that have few economic resources (i.e., the poor) and very modest safety needs, opt for
vigilante policing because public police do not effectively satisfy their safety needs - witness the
world-wide growth of vigilante groups such as the Guardian Angels in Europe and North America,
the I.R.A. in Northern Ireland, the Nation of Islam in the United States, and Otag in South Africa.6
At the other extreme, individuals and groups that have extraordinary economic resources and
prodigious safety needs (i.e., elites), opt for private policing because public police cannot provide
the specialized and comprehensive police services they require. Finally, groups that have
considerable safety needs but only modest economic resources (i.e., the middle class), opt for public
police because they cannot satisfy their safety needs themselves and they cannot afford more
expensive private policing (Figure 6).

From the foregoing analysis it can be seen that effective community policing requires a 'blend'
of private, public, and vigilante police services that satisfy the unique safety needs of elites, middle
classes and the poor respectively. Fortunately, it appears that if left unfettered, a community will
spontaneously improvise the police services it requires to satisfy the safety needs of all its members.

CONCLUSION

At first glance the community policing programs developed by public police agencies appear
to be an original policing solution crafted to satisfy the safety needs of modern informational
communities. However, upon closer examination it can be seen that these programs are rooted in the
vigilante police form that was used by traditional farming communities to reproduce social order.
Clearly, the individuals who inhabit modern informational communities have a range of safety needs
beginning with the modest needs of the poor, progressing to the considerable needs of the middle
class and culminating in the prodigious needs of elites, that cannot be satisfied by a single form of
policing. To the contrary, what is required, is a subtle blend of police forms - vigilante, public and
private- that cover the entire Spectrum of Policing.